The ambit of liability for negligently caused mental harm -finding the balance

Abstract

The High Court of Australia in Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited and affirmed in Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd , has restated the common law of Australia for negligently inflicted mental harm. These common law initiatives have been largely adopted in statutory form in some Australian States in civil liability statutes which follow the recommendations of the Ipp Report on negligence law.

These common law and statutory initiatives seek to strike a balance between an appropriate limitation on potential claimants for negligently inflicted psychiatric illness and the recovery of damages in clear and obvious situations of mental harm arising from the close or special relationship or circumstances of the defendant tortfeasor, victim and plaintiff. These initiatives have also removed from this area of the law some policy-driven control mechanisms whose application as pre-conditions to recovery have produced illogical and unjust results.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Access to the author manuscript version is currently restricted pending permission from the publisher. For more information, please refer to the journal’s website (link above) or contact the author : n.katter@qut.edu.au